Anarcho-Socialism? What is it?

But what about below?

When?

This in no way contradicts my previous post.

When we band together there is no obstacle we can't conquer.

You've been insisting that anarchism and capitalism can go together for a while now. Even going as far to say that anarcho-capitalism is the only real anarchism.

@Lenin: Mayor is actually more or less right. At the end of the day the role of enforcement is left to the people and their delegates.

Yes, but I think he is getting the impression a mass mob can just kill someone because they think ze's(HORRAH FOR GENDER NEUTRAL PRONOUNS!) ugly.

Making my argument into a straw man in no way enforces yours. We could have an argument of whether being ugly is a form of aggression but that idea is ridiculous.

Refer to "more or less right".

Anarchism is at best a fool's novelty and at worst an inspiration for terrorism and random violence. Either way it doesn't hold a lot of sway and has virtually no chance of ever coming about, especially while we contend with scarcity.

Anarchism in a world of 6 billion humans, no thanks.

I think joske already provided a technical, if scathing, response to your question. Simply put, anarchism is an opposition to hierarchy. An anarchist society would be a totally devolved society where man could no impose will on man, and thus property would not exist. In this regard they are similar to communists, though anarchism itself isn't about overthrowing capitalism as much as it is about overthrowing all hierarchy. That unfortunately doesn't prevent anarchists from using the positively dreadful socialist/communist lingo, theme, and iconography.

I replied to your question in something around the first page.

Oh kali you never quit do you?

Anarchism is not incompatible with communism, see Anarcho-Communism. The difference is Anarchy can also have other society's, such as mutualist markets or syndicalist councils.

Marxists/What-everyone-is-calling-communists eventually want a anarchist society, but there not anarchists because its a different school of thought and they usually want some sort of temporary statist stage.

The idea is that everybody will live in communes of 300 or so people.

Not even in a state of absolute abundance and leisure. It just ain't happening.

Who said we all need to live in communes of 300 people?

Egoist anarchism is about maximizing the freedom of the self to do whatever it wants (therefore abolishing any and all who seek to rule over the self - 'anarchism') - this may or may not be expanded into a particular social system the ego sees as most beneficial to live in
Moral anarchism is about maximizing the benefit of some ideological entity (humanity, life, the earth, etc.) with a sort of self-ruled/equally co-ruled society (called 'anarchism') simply being the system that will satisfy that most effectively

There are several sub-types of moral anarchism based on what ideological entity is pursued - I'll try to outline those real quick.

• 'Humanist' anarchism: For the maximal benefit of all humans present and future (with the definition of benefit ranging from meaning freedom to happiness et cetera – most tradition social anarchism fits here)
• 'Animal' anarchism: For the maximal benefit of all animals present and future (Veganarchism would be in this category)
• 'Life'/'The Earth' anarchism: For the maximal benefit of all life on the planet/for the maximal benefit of the ecosystem of 'the earth' (Primitive anarchism and Green anarchism would fit here)

As for particular social systems that some anarchists have proposed the two thought processes outlined above lead to several different systems:

There are three strands of egoism I've seen: - Firstly, the form that has little or no concern for making a social structure around the ego (usually not seeing such a change as viable or in the interest of the ego to waste time on), but rather seeking how to use/manipulate the existing system best for themselves (here would go some of the post-left anarchists as well as stirnerites) - Secondly, egoism will often lead to a philosophy of self-defended absolute personal property. Sometimes this will expand to a desire of this attitude/model for all - individualized control over as much of the world as each individual can defend (including the self) from others. That is the core of most individualist and free market systems of anarchism (here fits late Tuckerism) - Thirdly, some egoists see the self as too weak or see the above isolated system as unsatisfying to the social desires of the ego and not allowing an abundant material or social life. In this circumstance rather than individual defense of plots of resources, they advocate group defense of plots of resources with the group collectively having control of the resources according to the rules of the group, agreed to for the egoistic benefit of all the members. This will usually be some sort of equal power system based in tribes/democratic assemblies (egoist variants of the systems listed below fit here)

Of the moralists, there are all sorts of systems. However, they almost always are a moral rather than egoist version of the third type of egoist system. That is, control of resources is based on collective self-defense/communal property. - First comes exchange systems. This would be where the local community technically still democratically owns all the resources, but agrees to a system of very liberal individually distributed control of pieces of the total pie – which can then be exchanged and labored upon for personal benefit of the possessions. Usually in these systems, if any of the communal resources are unused/left unattended for a period of time they reenter the public domain and are redistributed to those in need. - Next are the communist systems. Basically, the local community would defend whatever group is using a set of resources to be the democratic controllers of that resource as long as they are using it effectively in what the community thinks is in its interest (so households control homes while workers control workplaces etc). As above, any unused resources are obviously redirected back toward the community to redistribute.

Syndicalism is simply a strategy of revolution advocated by a specific subset of anarchists based on a large anarchist labor union using a general strike to force the hand of the state and capitalists.

When it comes to communism/anarchism, I believe the greatest difficulty lies in how we present our case to those unfamiliar with our position. How many people are going to immediately come out in favor of an idea that revolves around a classless, stateless society? For those who aren’t as well versed in anarchist thinking, such a proposal borders on idealism (at best, the worst probably being insanity). The greatest obstacle to achieving a revolutionized consciousness is the minds of the workers themselves, in connection with the material, cultural, and sociopolitical institutions around them. Once one is able to come into a truly critical consciousness—an “awakening” of sorts—you remove perhaps one of the greatest barriers to a revolution. Our role revolves around trying to point out the relationship of the oppressed to their oppressors, and correctly identifying the source of their suffering. Too often this is twisted into channels that reflect the needs and demands of the oppressors themselves, building anger towards a particular segment of the national or international political-financial elite without endangering themselves in the process. This directs the working-class into conflict with only a specific layer of oppression, without posing a threat to the system as a whole.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that society managed to get beyond this, becoming revolutionized in their goals and efforts—culminating in the overthrow of the ruling elite. It is difficult to predict what would come next: would the workers push for a communist state or abolish it outright? Would they reject national borders and everything that comes with them, or would their situation push them to embrace it? The problem lies in predicting how society will grow and interact within its transformed reality. Furthermore, will the inevitable growth in ideological differences manifest itself in armed conflict, or will these antagonisms be resolved through proper democratic channels? It’s difficult to say, but I would argue that these issues can (and should) be tied into the formation of future movements prior to any revolutionary activity. By impressing upon the oppressed that they share a common situation and goal, we manage to get our foot in the door. If we can point to capitalism and the state and say “Here lies the source(s) of your oppression, in their entirety,” and convince the people in the process, we lay the groundwork for more in-depth proposals. Our efforts will yield results if we can successfully convince the average workingwoman/man that the reasons for his/her plight lie in the policies and machinations of global capitalism and the state(s) that support it.

Everything that follows can be seen as a progression from that point. Issues such as workers’ democracy, classlessness and statelessness, national identity, gender roles and sexuality, etc. etc. can be sought out and addressed as society adjusts to the path it has taken. I would argue that any given nation’s working-class who rises up in revolt and solidarity already has the seeds of transformation working within it. First comes consciousness, then the fight—and with the fight comes a binding solidarity. If the people can emerge from this fight successfully with that sense of solidarity intact, I suspect it would be only natural for everything else to gradually fall into place. It’s a process guided by the revolutionary principles of a working-class that is conscious of its efforts to achieve a truly liberated society. Unfortunately, I don’t think that answers your question, and I suspect I’ve just rambled on about a situation without providing the necessary concreteness it deserves. Everything that I’ve touched on remains a generality, and I apologize for that. Hopefully some of it proves helpful.

and THIS is why I love my Lady Catherine. <3

You know I'm amazing.